Skip to main content
Sunday, November 15, 2026Nov 15

Court: Tennessee can enforce Down syndrome abortion ban

FILE - In this Nov. 10, 2020, file photo, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee speaks with reporters in Nashville, Tenn. A federal appeals court ruled Friday, Nov. 20, 2020, that Tennessee can begin outlawing abortions because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, as well prohibit the procedure if it is based on the race or gender of the fetus. Earlier this year, Lee enacted the so-called "reason bans" as part of a sweeping anti-abortion measure that he signed earlier this year. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File)
FILE - In this Nov. 10, 2020, file photo, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee speaks with reporters in Nashville, Tenn. A federal appeals court ruled Friday, Nov. 20, 2020, that Tennessee can begin outlawing abortions because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, as well prohibit the procedure if it is based on the race or gender of the fetus. Earlier this year, Lee enacted the so-called "reason bans" as part of a sweeping anti-abortion measure that he signed earlier this year. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File)

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Tennessee can begin outlawing abortions because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, as well as prohibit the procedure if it’s based on the race or gender of the fetus.

Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee enacted the so-called “reason bans” earlier this year as part of a sweeping anti-abortion measure. The law gained national attention because it banned abortion as early as six weeks – making it one of the strictest in the country – but it included several other anti-abortion components.

The law was immediately blocked by a lower federal court just hours after Lee signed it into law.

However, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision will allow the state to enforce the reason bans while abortion rights groups continue their court battle against that law.

The plaintiffs, which include Tennessee abortion providers being represented by reproductive rights groups, had argued the ban was improperly vague, but the court disagreed.